Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

You've been proven wrong countless times over the years here. Negroes have smaller brain volume than do Northern Europeans, and brain volume is linked to IQ. Both of these claims are well established. You continue citing nisbett when you can't defend criticism against him. You are perpetually dishonest and a huckster.

More tricks from the perpetually dishonest. I never made any claims and never posted in the thread you hyperlinked.

You're clearly delirious and so prone to dishonesty I'm sure you figured you could get away with yet more.

What's funny is this is another example how utterly factually bankrupt you are.

 

Nothing I said is dishonest and if anyone is a huckster it is those pretending their claims have any scientific credibility when they don't. Case in point you are once again repeating the ridiculous arguments of Empress that I can't defend the arguments of Nisbett which is a lie as I have cited Nisbett and defended his work many times. Moreover Empress has been trolling for years claiming that I duck referencing Nisbett as a source when she is around. When we debated on Youtube I responded to her in good faith vowing to read Nisbett's full book and get back to her with a response to Lee's article. However over the years I have found her to be an extremely dishonest and mentally unstable.

What she is doing is trolling and shifting the burden of proof. She hasn't posted any sources in this thread supporting her argument that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and instead demands that I explain how each environmental variable impacts IQ otherwise I am guilty of promoting racism against White people for failing to explain how only racism can account for IQ differences. Demanding I respond in detail to a single criticism of Nisbett which doesn't even challenge his core arguments against genetic interpretations of racial gaps in IQ is absurd and a distraction from the real debate about Scientific Racism being a pseudoscientific topic. I have already provided several sources showing that proponents of Scientific Racism are making fallacious arguments when they attempt to discredit environmental variables that could explain group differences in IQ. The argument against a genetic component is based on sound scientific reasoning which has yet to be refuted.

My argument based on experimental quantitative genetics: In order to infer genetic causality for phenotypic differences exhibited by different genotypes those genotypes have to be reared in the same environment. This is impossible to do experimentally with humans from demographic groups living in racially stratified societies.

Nisbett's research is relevant in so far as it shows that there is a lot of psychometric research that contradicts many of the arguments of racial hereditarians but beyond that there is no reason to give a detailed response to James Lee's article as it's not relevant to my main argument and reason for citing Nisbett in the first place. Nisbett's work doesn't need to be defended by me any way since his work is supported by many colleagues. No serious scholar calls his credibility in to question. If Empress wants to debate me on Nisbett's work she can do so on a science message board. I have come to a board where she is a moderator and been horribly mistreated by her. She hasn't responded to any of my sources in this thread. She is arguing in bad faith and trolling. I am prepared to discuss Nisbett's work as I have read his book but I will report you if you are doing it to hijack the thread.

If you want a detailed critique of Lee's article (which is trollbait but I'll bite) I will do so only under these conditions:

1. The debate is at Sciforum.

2. I get a verbal agreement from Empress that she will register and debate.

3. If she wants me to invite James Lee to the thread I will do so if she contributes consistently to the thread for at least 2 pages.

Empress disappears too often from this forum and engages in too much trolling to take her seriously. For now this is all you're getting on her little side discussion:

A few years ago I got in a debate with Empress on my Youtube channel where she cited an article written by James J. Lee reviewing Nisbett's book. I had no familiarity with Lee as a scholar but I told her I would read it and respond when I had time.

This is the article in question:

I did email Nisbett for a response and this was his reply:

As I recall I showed this response to Empress on my Youtube channel. She was unsatisfied with this and accused Nisbett of ducking a reply. However looking back on it what Nisbett is clearly saying is that he co-authored an article that addresses much of the research in his book and it survived peer-review. Indeed the paper Nisbett attached to this email is regarded as a follow up to the American Psychological Association's statements on race and intelligence from 1996.

https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/intelligence-new-findings-and-theoretical-developments

As you can see there are many areas of research related to intelligence, too many in fact for me to directly address in this post. I recommend that anyone interested simply read the article for themselves and provide feedback. Nisbett felt that since his paper stood up to peer-review, was positively received and there were numerous other critics to his work who couldn't touch any of his core arguments about intelligence his book has been vindicated by the academic community. I have to agree and more importantly the Lee article doesn't say anything that directly challenges my main claims about race and intelligence.

I will say this. I am in disagreement on one issue regarding Nisbett's comments. The claim that Blacks or any other racial group are mentally inferior (have lower IQs because of genetic differences) is a pseudoscientific claim commonly made by racists. Now can you believe in genetically determined racial differences in intelligence and not hold any malice towards a group of people you deem intellectually inferior? I suppose it is possible and some people who swear they have Egalitarian views on race have stated that they have been persuaded by "race-realism" but in my experience those people are scientifically illiterate and have been fooled by racists in to believing their propaganda.

The proposal that groups of people within a species socially-defined as belonging to differences races are genetically differentiated in ways that make some of those groups mentally deficient is not only scientifically incorrect but highly offensive. Most people who advance this position have a racist ideological agenda and shouldn't be taken seriously in debate which is the point of this thread, to expose the pseudoscientific nature and absurdity of this argument. Nisbett is more forgiving in viewing these bigots as misguided and biased researchers but anyone familiar with their work and promoters of their work can easily recognize that these racist ideologues are promoting pseudoscience for the benefit of racists who want to believe their claims.

After reading Nisbett's book and reviewing Lee's article I see many errors in Lee's arguments but it is not worth my time to go in to detail on them unless the challengers in question show that they are willing to debate this subject on a respectable level. The book collected dust on my book shelf for awhile as I had other things to do with my time and Empress kept leaving the board to post elsewhere. But rethinking my proposal there is no reason to waste my time on a debater like her when her source doesn't address my main arguments, Nisbett's reputation as a credible research is secure and Empress nor any racists in this thread have challenged any of my arguments. Seriously why should I bother with the likes of her or you if you can't respond to my sources?

Let me summarize in this thread alone what type of research you, Empress, Taxonomy26 and other racists are ignoring:

Scholars cited by EgalitarianJay02 in this thread:

1) Joseph Graves 2) David Suzuki 3) Rory Coker 4) Richard Nisbett 5) Jelte Wicherts 6) James Flynn 7) Amy Hsin 8. Kenneth L. Beals 9) Leonard Lieberman

Sources Cited by EgalitarianJay02 in this thread:

1) Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86, 2013

2) The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium p. 8 and 9

3) A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans Intelligence 38 (2010) 1–20

4) Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence From Standardization Samples Psychological Science Volume 17 - Number 10 (2006)

5) How “caucasoids” got such big crania and why they shrank: From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology 42(1):69–95 (2001)

6) Explaining Asian Americans’ academic advantage over whites Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA , 111, 8416–8421

7) Brain Size, Cranial Morphology, Climate, and Time Machines CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY V01. 25, NO 3, June 1984

That's 9 scholars and 7 sources I've cited in this thread a lone. I've refuted you several times on brain size and intelligence. Your claims of a link between brain volume and intelligence are based on correlation data and the discredited research of Rushton. Lieberman refuted Rushton point by point. You have never provided a note worthy critique of this article and instead fixated on Lieberman citing Gould's criticism of Morton and Gould's analysis was refuted by Lewis. I have countered that several times with Weisberg's article and I have another article which gives even more detailed analysis. When I debated you on Sciforum you continually denied that Weisberg had vindicated Gould on his core criticisms and cited research by Rushton which was refuted by Graves. You were banned for not backing up your claims with sources and the thread was closed before I could respond to you but the fact is that you were unable to provide any feedback on Graves' criticism that could vindicate Rushton just like you are unable to respond to any of these sources.

 

Readers can read the thread for themselves:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-and-iq-differences.156169/

Of special interest are my arguments in post #26, #29, #34, #43 and #55.

I argued in post #22 that Leonard Lieberman wrote an article that definitively refuted Rushton and other scholars' claims of racial hierarchies in brain size. Among Lieberman's arguments were that Rushton used the concept of race despite it being invalidated by research over the span of decades showing that humans do not have biological races. Rushton's use of aggregation was invalid because his sources varied in quality making his aggregates of data to compare the brain size of races unreliable. Rushton did not control for variables that could render reliable brain measurement between populations ignoring key control variables utilized by Tobias. Rushton's claims of racial hierarchy in brain size are inconsistent with evolutionary anthropology and he misinterpreted the research of Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) and others to support his claims. Finally, Rushton did not take in to account the environmental and nutritional influences on brain development while attempting to explain complex human behavior ignoring research that contradicts his viewpoint and ignoring or attempting to discredit environmental influences.

Lieberman reviewed the history of craniometry and Scientific Racism showing that racial hierarchies have changed over time to conform to the prejudices of biased researchers.



Modern Science has refuted this claim. Rayznack completely ignored the real substance of the article to fixate only on Lieberman citing Gould's claim that Morton's research on cranial capacity conformed to his racial bias. I showed him that Weisberg had vindicated Gould which he denied over and over despite my providing key quotes in bold showing that I was correct.

Example:

That's as dishonest as you can get when you continue to deny statements written in plain English.

There is no causal relationship between brain size and intelligence. Brain size does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation and brain size variation between human populations is more strongly correlated with climate than geography. There is also brain size variation within geographic populations and brain size varies for environmental and developmental reasons as well making comparisons between populations or races to make evolutionary arguments about racial differences in intelligence unscientific. Several sources support these statements and while it might be overkill at this point I will post relevant quotes from sources outlining these points.

I don't expect you to respond to any of these sources with a legitimate counter argument but they are there as a rebuttal to the pseudoscientific racist trash that you have been promoting.

 

I never said you posted in that thread. Do you see how dishonest you are? Unless you lack basic reading comprehension you know that I was clearly responding to your claim about racial background determining crime rates which you and other racists have associated with testosterone levels and aggression genes. Are you denying that you've ever claimed this? If you are you are lying.

Those claims have been refuted by me in the past. That was the point of the hyperlink.

You're simply out of your league here. I'm still reading more in my spare time. My arguments are only going to get better but I've proven that I am more than capable of shutting you down. You can lie, troll, hurt childish insults and play all the games you want but at the end of the day your position is still racist garbage and you can't support your claims with credible sources.

This comment should win most ironic statement of the year.

 

How did you come to the conclusion there is no causal relationship between brain volume and IQ as opposed to causality having not been established? What are you basing your claim on that larger brain volume, on average, doesn't result in higher IQ?

 

I clearly answered both of those questions within my posts which are supported by the sources I cited e.g.

"Brain size does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation and brain size variation between human populations is more strongly correlated with climate than geography. There is also brain size variation within geographic populations and brain size varies for environmental and developmental reasons as well making comparisons between populations or races to make evolutionary arguments about racial differences in intelligence unscientific." - Egalitarianjay02 in post #53.

The Wicherts quote establishes that if we assumed a causal relationship between cranial capacity or brain size and intelligence the available research would indicate that mean differences in brain size are too small to explain a significant portion of IQ gaps between groups. If you actually read Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) you will see that their conclusions are consistent with my statements.

Since brain size doesn't determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation and brain size is affected by environmental and development factors including nutrition neither genetic differences between populations nor ancestry can be claimed to determine the overall size of the brain.

Do you have any sources that refute the arguments of my sources?

 

That's not an answer; that's a logical fallacy. That also doesn't answer your claim that brain volume isn't causative for intelligence.

How do you know there is no causal relationship between brain volume and IQ?

Your 'answer' doesn't even address the question.

Please no copy-pasties.

Demonstrare using a line of logic how you concluded brain volume is in no part responsible for IQ. That's what you claimed, but am unsurprised you can't grasp your 'own' arguments.

 

This is what you do when you don't have any credible research of your own to post. The sources are right there in front of your eyes written in plain English stating that brain size does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation. Do I need to put the relevant sentences in bold for you too? You see the reported figures on brain size. You see the equation that tests the claim that cranial capacity or brain size is a causative factor in determining intelligence and the results show that even assuming a causal relationship between brain size and intelligence the reported figures can not explain 95% of the gap in IQ score. So right there you have concrete evidence that there is no causal relationship between brain size and intelligence.

Now that doesn't mean that there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence. Some correlation is expected as healthy, normal brains have better mental functioning and environmental factors such as nutrition are necessary for a brain to reach its genetic potential for growth. However simply having a bigger brain doesn't make you smarter. Obviously if bigger brains = greater intelligence animals such as whales and elephants would be smarter than humans. But even though there is a high correlation between intelligence and brain size relative to body size this brain/body ratio (degree of encephalization) doesn't hold up within species. We know this because of measurements of brains of people that weren't abnormally large yet they were highly intelligent by any reasonable standard and some like Carl Friedrich Gauss and Albert Einstein are recognized as being among the smartest men who ever lived. They don't have very large brains compared to the average human.

Furthermore we know that racial background does not determine brain size given that there are populations such as Native Americans who have a recent common ancestry and close genetic relationship compared to other geographic populations but display the full range of variation in cranial size between human populations. There is also significant variation in cranial size within geographic populations. In Weisberg's analysis of Morton's data, for example, he found that there was greater variation in cranial size between some of the sub-populations of Morton's racial groups than between his racial groups.

All of the research is there and I even provided you links to the full articles so you can read them for yourself and tell me what you disagree with or find questionable. Any further claims that I have not addressed your larger brain volume = greater intelligence claims is going to be taken as trolling and be reported. I have answered your question and provided the appropriate sources that support my position.

Now what sources do you have that challenge these conclusions?

 

I find it amusing how your long winded replies are so lacking a basic ability to use logic.

I asked you a very specific claim and you've shown an inability of comprehension.

No where have you actually shown brain volume does not have a causative relation with IQ; you are merely repeating yourself without answering the question.

How do you know brain volume is not causative for intelligence when correlation exists? What evidence do you have showing brain volume having no impact on intelligence?

I'm simply astounded at your shallow cognitive ability to understand straightforward questions.

You made a very specific claim, and I'm asking you to very specifically support it.

No long winded ranting, no copy pasties. Do a google search to learn how to debate using a line of logic, and respond to how you know brain volume is not linked to IQ.

 

You're trolling and don't have any counter arguments. This is why you got banned on Sciforum. You insult the intelligence of your opponent, questioning their ability to defend their claims, despite multiple sources supporting their point and an explanation being given to you when you don't have any credible sources of your own supporting your claim. I clearly showed you that the size of the brain does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation, meaning that a healthy and normal brain (vs. that of a malnourished or diseased person) does not improve in cognitive ability due to increase in overall size.

A correlation does not imply causation and that is the mistake you have made over and over with your larger brain volume = greater intelligence arguments. You have an answer to your question supported by sources and rather than respond to the sources with a counter argument you ask ridiculous questions over and over to dance around the issue and pretend I haven't made a valid argument just like you did when I cited the Weisberg study as a counter to the Lewis study. Your denial of established facts and refusal to address the argument is a logical fallacy and a troll tactic.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue

Avoiding the Issue

(also known as: avoiding the question [form of], missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, distraction [form of])

Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument. Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim X.

Person 2 makes unrelated statement.

Audience and/or person 1 forgets about claim X.

 

I'm not making any mistake. You haven't shown the correlation isn't causative but claim there is no causative relation between brain volume and IQ.

How can you conclusively claim there is no causative relation between brain volume and IQ?

This question is so simple, yet you lack the basic ability to process the meaning of plain language.

Edit: this is like your moronic claim that a correlation coefficient greater than zero and less than 0.5 is negative correlation.

You lack basic understanding of concepts and have poor critical thinking ability where you repeat yourself ad nauseaum without trying to understand what you don't know.

You lack critical thinking skills and basic education in logic and math.

 

Yes it is, because you claim I "owe" sources here when I don't.

I have, which is why I noticed long ago that you claim the presence of any environmental impact on human IQ is necessarily shown to be "caused by discrimination and poverty" is false, because none of the data in existence shows this, and as I said, terms like "discrimination and poverty" are not precisely defined and are subjective, thus lack in real meaning.

You continuously fail to present how we know that myriad other environmental factors have no impact.

As I present no argument here, as I said, I owe no source materials. I'm pointing out the shortcomings in YOUR argument, and what you have not shown to be true. No more, no less.

You're making excuses as to why you've not defended Nisbett from criticism for over 3 years. I even made the thread for you, and you predictably had it flagged and shut down.

"Flee"? No. I just have a life outside of obsessing over a dead man.

There is no rational reason why someone would linger on a forum with baited breath waiting for a promised thread in defense of an indefensible argument. Every time I've come and checked in, I get more excuses, like you've presented here.

Considering you use the guy as a source and have done so for years, you should have been able to defend his work the entire time, and you cannot. You can try to save face from that any way you can think of, but the lack of a basis for your argument is clear because Nisbett himself has been unable to respond to Lee since the paper was published in 2009.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not the one that emails people to make arguments for me. Nisbett has not - and will never - respond to Lee's criticisms. YOU as someone untrained in psychology cannot possibly fill that void, and endless emailing people isn't going to cut it.

He dashed Nisbett's work to the winds explaining in detail why his work was not only flawed but did not illustrate the conclusions that Nisbett claimed it did. Nisbett has no rebuttal for Lee's criticisms and never will.

Again, Nisbett's conclusions were stretched and lacked coherence in correlating scientific data as Lee showed, As I said, you have not proven where it has been shown that subjective terms like "discrimination and poverty" are the cause of the IQ gap.

You promised 3 years ago to defend Nisbett's work from his critics and you continue to fail. It's been since April of 2014 if I recall correctly. I point that out intermittently, and instead of owning up to your failure, you try to shift the blame to me.

There is no "debate" here. You prove your argument regarding Nisbett's conclusions or you don't. Calling people racists doesn't distract from that you continue to use sub-par sources. I've called you on that for over 3 years and you keep veering off topic. You've repeatedly falsely accused me of being a Rushton lover and other bizarre things.

Calling you out for dishonest tactics and use of poor source materials while pretending those sources are solid isn't "trolling," regardless of how much your feelings are hurt.

 

This is actually a lie. I never said that. I said that a statistically low correlation more strongly supports the position that European genes do not make African-Americans smarter. You kept disputing this and when I asked Nisbett about this area of his research he called you an idiot.

I never said that a low correlation is a negative correlation.

I also clearly provided sources showing that variation in cranial capacity and brain size between populations is too small to explain a significant portion of reported IQ differences.

That's your proof right there that brain volume and intelligence do not have a causal relationship among other evidence. But even if I bold the relevant sentences I know from history that you're not going to accept this given your blatant dishonesty when discussing Weisberg's research where you denied over and over that his article was a rebuttal to the claims of Lewis about Gould's research even though the relevant comments are written in plain English and highlighted in bold.

You are simply too dishonest to take seriously. That's why you were banned on Sciforum. That's why you can't provide any counter sources to defend your argument in this thread. That's why Nisbett called you an idiot. But hey if you are still under the delusion that you are correct you can always consult an expert and show they support your argument like I did, provide a source that supports your conclusion or get feedback from a scientifically literate community.

But you won't do this because you're trolling.

 

@Empress

I addressed your ridicolous argument in post #52. If you want to debate Nisbett's research in reference to Lee's article you have my conditions for that debate. One critical article does not make Nisbett a poor source. Unless you can show that Nisbett isn't regarded as a credible source by the academic community there is no reason to take that claim seriously. So you have your response and your conditions for the debate. If you try to derail my thread any further with your nonsense you will be reported. Beyond that I have provided sources defending my position that there is no scientific basis for claiming a genetic component to group differences in IQ. You nor any of the racists in this thread have refuted my arguments or even attempted to.

Again my argument:

The sources and scholars I have cited that support my argument are contained in that post. If you disagree with the argument then challenge it, otherwise you're going to be reported for trolling.

 

You apparently don't understand basic language.

You just cited a source against your claim that there is no relationship between brain volume and IQ.

This is why responding to you is mind numbing because you lack the education and thinking ability to contructively engage in debate.

You didn't claim the brain volume difference doesn't fully account for the IQ gap. You made an entirely different argument that claims brain volume doesn't matter at all. You are completely unable to understand this difference and continue posting sources for arguments you don't understand and some which contradict you but do address anything i said.

I might as well be arguing with the zoo chimp.

Lol. Only a negative correlation in that context would support your argument.

This is why you shouldn't debate these topics because you lack the requisite baseline knowledge.

Nisbett's comment was based on your flawed description of the conversation.

Any positive correlation between degree of white heritage and IQ supports the racial IQ theory, but the weaker the correlation coefficient the weaker the evidence until it reaches 0, at which point tgere is no evidence, or goes negative, which would show theexact opposite.

Like i said. I might as well converse with the zoo chimp.

 

Lol. What does this even mean?

Try to explain in your own words, then provide one or two sources you imagine support your claim.

The source you highlighted for me above simply doesn't claim what you are claiming.

It simply says brain volume differences do not account for all or even most of the IQ gap, but may very well account for some.

You apparently do not understand basic language and misuse sources to arrive at faulty conclusions.

Except brain volume is also influenced by genetics, and the frontal cortex is strongly influenced by genetics and is most involved in cognitive processing. Without evidence, you cannot claim the brain volume differences are due to environment. This is also countervailing to your initial premise. You manage to twist yourself in logical fallacies.

Except it doesn't do the opposite, either.

You are either dishonest or cognitively challenged to such a degree that when something is unknown, you automatically conclude the opposite without evidence.

Unlike you, i am actually a scientist with a degree in a field of physical science.

Unlike, i can spot your logical fallacies, and see you lack either ability or objectivity, and lacking either puts you outside the fold for having this conversation.

 

Discrimination and poverty are environmental variables that have been proven to affect IQ score. I have shown plenty of evidence for this. You never address them because you are unable to.

When it comes to the Black-White IQ gap it is a historical fact that racist discrimination exists and significantly affected the Socioeconomic Status of African-Americans for 100 years before the Civil Rights movement. After laws were passed to eliminate institutionalized racial discrimination the Socioeconomic Status of African-Americans improved significantly. IQ research showed that during this time period (1972-2002) the Black-White IQ gap was reduced significantly as well. That proved that discrimination and poverty impact IQ. Furthermore research has shown that when controlling for environmental variables including indicators of Socioeconomic Status as well as family and neighborhood quality the Black-White IQ gap is virtually eliminated.

Here are studies and research supporting those statements:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11752490

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8625720

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17100793

You've no doubt seen these studies before. Here they are again. Let's see if you can actually respond to research this time.

 

Sure, that's why you got banned from a science message board. Would you like to carry this conversation to another science message board and see how you fair again?

I have already provided you with sources supporting my comments so you can go back to my previous posts and respond to them or you can provide a counter argument. If you don't understand what my statement means then I can't help you there. If I have to dumb down the conversation for you like a parent spoon feeding their toddler then you are simply not able to grasp basic concepts relevant to this discussion.

I already clarified what this means any way:

"I clearly showed you that the size of the brain does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation, meaning that a healthy and normal brain (vs. that of a malnourished or diseased person) does not improve in cognitive ability due to increase in overall size."

Lieberman (2001) and Wicherts (2010) support this statement as do the email responses of Joseph Graves and Scott MacEachern that I quoted. So you have your information and clarification. Respond to my sources and show you are capable of making a counter argument.

 

You're unable to define "discrimination and poverty" yet claim they are responsible for the IQ gap. Do they "affect" IQ gaps or do they CAUSE them? Which is your argument? If it's only a partial cause, then how much?

You seem to be trying to defend Nisbett's arguments by avoiding defending Nisbett.

I already posted a study regarding this some time ago, which is in part another debunking of Nisbett's conclusions:

"In Europe and the United States, Flynn effects are indeed rare in cohorts born after about 1980. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish between accelerated childhood development and higher adult intelligence."

A textbook I previously cited stated the Flynn effects stopped around 1970.

As I explained before, research shows that the older the kids get, environmental influences on IQ decrease. That's called the Wilson Effect - a phenomenon which you have never addressed. Studies show that 70%-90% of adult IQ is heritable. A textbook I previously cited stated 70%, as I recall, Rushton's estimate was 80%. Environmental influences on human IQ do not remain steady throughout life.

As far as things like segregation being removed increasing black SES, I am skeptical. Integration destroyed black enterprise. Black business could not compete with larger white firms and black farming couldn't compete with corporate farming. We continue to see mom and pop shops shuttering when WalMart comes to town.

 

You could say this of animals. What gene is there to distinguish lions from tigers? Is classifying them separately scientifically invalid?

 

Yes; because posting on science message boards corresponds to your level of scientific knowledge as evidenced by your scientific background.

What is your scientific background, again?

I addressed your misuse of sources showing that you are a functionally illiterate individual.

Your sources don't support your initial claim, and even contradict your initial claim.

You also managed to cite sources that are unrelate to your premise.

I understand the claim just fine. Literally, none of your sources support your claim that brain volume is not causative for IQ. Literally none. You just post a wall of text without understanding anything you're posting.

What would be a concept i would be unable to grasp? How to determine a correlation coefficient? Why don't you tell me how to do that?

I mean, I'm pretty sure i can run circles around you in statistics, have done so, and we both know i cando it again.

You're so innumerate you again tried conflating low positive correlation with negative correlation. You literally have no basic idea how graphs work.

Like i said, this is mind numbing qnd we both know I'll humiliate you.

You haven't shown this. How could you be so impaired to think any of your sources actually support this claim?

I doubt you could explain via analogy what this means, but it's unsupported and demonstrably wrong.

You don't understand what you're claiming and that leads you to cite sources that don't support these claims.

They literally don't claim brain volume isn't linked to IQ, and they don't provide evidence.

You do not even understand your own premise.

 

What? You need definitions of discrimination and poverty? Did you graduate from high school?

Discrimination

noun

1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

Poverty

noun

1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

If you don't understand words defined in the dictionary then you have serious problems. Are you denying that institutional racial discrimination against Blacks has existed throughout American history prior to the Civil Rights Movement? I recall you making some bizarre comment about segregation having nothing to do with poverty and saying Blacks being denied the right to use the bathroom with Whites had no impact on IQ score. Maybe you are just completely ignorant of American history, politics and race-relations.

Explain why you don't understand that discrimination against a demographic group can cause them to be disproportionately poor and how the evidence I provided showing that Blacks improved in IQ score and income level during the decades following the Civil Rights movement is not concrete evidence that improving the environment for a group can improve their IQ.

The IQ gap between demographic groups such as Black and White Americans is 100% Environmental in cause. We know this because a genetic component has been ruled out as a cause. We don't need to know how much a specific environmental variable impacts IQ score although we do know that controlling for certain variables can significantly reduce the gap. I provided evidence supporting these points which you have failed to respond to.

The quote by Nisbett is in reference to the study by Brooks-Gunn and has nothing to do with the Flynn Effect.

That has nothing to do with the research I just posted. The fact that IQ stabilizes in adulthood has no relevance to the fact that IQ gaps between groups can be eliminated by controlling for environmental differences that have an effect on IQ. This is actually directly addressed in Flynn and Dickens (2006) and in their response to Rushton and Jensen when they challenged the finding that Black American IQ was gradually converging on White American IQ in recent decades.

Some Black Americans have made the same argument about integration's influence Black businesses however that has no relevance to the fact that the Socioeconomic status of the average Black American improved after desegregation.

 

What evidence have you ever provided for your scientific background? Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. I checked your post history and the only time you have ever mentioned your alleged degree in chemistry on this board is when you were referencing it to boast about your scientific background in debates promoting Scientific Racism. Provide some evidence for your scientific background. You got banned for trolling on a science message board because you couldn't defend your sources so there is no reason to take you seriously.

While not everyone on a science message board has a scientific background or is scientifically literate they do attract an audience that is interested in scientific topics including posters with scientific backgrounds. To get banned for trolling indicates that you were not taken seriously as a poster.

So let's compare how a moderator on a science message board responded to your presence vs. mine:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-and-iq-differences.156169/#post-3376861

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-and-iq-differences.156169/page-4#post-3377380

Your claims to a scientific background don't mean anything when it comes to your ability to debate scientific topics. If you can't provide evidence of your background there's no reason to believe you and if you can't provide quality debate even if it were true it doesn't mean anything.

For example Mikemikev claimed to have been a student of John Maynard Smith which he claimed gave him the educational background to critique the arguments of Joseph Graves. Graves expressed interest in this as Smith was a colleague of his and responded to Mikemikev's arguments refuting him point by point. Mikemikev was unable to provide a credible rebuttal.

Empress claims she studied Psychology in college and has books that refute my arguments on race and intelligence. I looked at the book she referenced, which she claimed supported her arguments and it actually provides a lot of research supporting my points. I made a thread on this topic and Empress failed to provide any serious discussion.

So if you want me to believe your claim provide evidence. Where did you go to school? Who was your professor? What specific degree did you earn? Do you have a post history anywhere on the internet where you discuss chemistry that I can review?

That is a lie. Anyone can review the sources for themselves and see that they support my argument. If you are claiming that they contradict my claim then provide quotes from those sources showing that they do.

Lieberman (2001) and Wicherts (2010) provide evidence that there is no scientific basis for claiming that there is a causal relationship between brain size and IQ. I have highlighted the relevant sentences several times.


How is it possible that cranial size varies with latitude while intelligence is nonclinal in its distribution? Cranial size is a response to natural selection in a cold climate, while
variations in the size of the brain do not determine intelligence within the species-normal range of 1,000–2,000 cm3, especially considering the role of cultural environment.

Source: How “Caucasoids” got such big crania and why they shrank: From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology 42(1):69–95 (2001)

Given the correlation between cranial capacity as measured externally and intelligence of around .20 (Rushton & Ankney, 2009), the Black-White gap in brain size cannot explain much of the IQ gap. Even if cranial capacity had a causal effect on g, then the Black-White gap in brain size cannot explain more than: .6*.2*15 = 1.8 IQ points. If we were to believe that the IQ gap between Africans and European Whites is 33 IQ points (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2006), then the brain size gap could explain a staggering 1.8/33 = 5% of the IQ gap. Thus, even under these terms, 95% of the IQ gap is left unexplained by brain size. With a correlation of .33 between brain volume and IQ as based on modern techniques (McDaniel, 2005), the gap in brain size can explain only 2.98 IQ points or 9% of the IQ gap.

Source: Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 104–106

Let me clarify that I am merely saying that variation in brain volume does not cause differences in IQ between groups not that brain volume has no relation to IQ. I don't know how you could confuse this but that is what I've been saying the whole time. My sources clearly support this.

This is a lie and your credibility on that subject was completely destroyed.

That really says it all right there. You got banned for trolling on a science message board and got called an idiot by a scholar for your inability to understand his research. So you can brag about your educational background and claim that you're going to humiliate me all you want. If you want me to take you seriously go find another scholar with credibility to speak on the subject and find another science message board to present your argument.

You know, unlike you I can actually contact my sources and provide feedback showing that what I am saying is supported by their work. Graves and MacEachern have already confirmed that my statements are correct. Lieberman is not alive to contact however I can simply email Wicherts and share that if I get a reply.

The position that differences in brain size between human populations does not cause differences in IQ is central to the arguments in Lieberman (2001) and Wicherts (2010) which is also supported by many other studies. If you don't understand this after read their papers then you are the one who is functionally illiterate. I never said that there was no link between brain volume and IQ only that variation in brain volume between groups of humans does not cause differences in IQ. The research in those papers clearly supports this.

Now can you provide any scientific research that wasn't already addressed in this thread that supports the argument that brain volume differences do cause group differences in IQ?

Your failure to interpret the work of Weisberg, Lieberman and Wicherts correctly and deny they made arguments that are central to the premise of their papers indicates you are both scientifically and functionally illiterate. Nisbett called you an idiot for your interpretation of his research. You were banned from Sciforum for failing to defend your claims with sources. You have stayed in this little sub-forum for years promoting Scientific Racism and trolling anyone who challenges you. Well your credibility is on the line here and like the other racists you are failing with every post.

 

You've yet to provide any for yours.

Yes, as you've previously made arguments that IQ is 50% environmental, of which I proved incorrect. Your source for that at the time was Graves. I recall your quoting him directly.

Those textbooks show that:

1) Intelligence runs in famillies
2) Adopted kids have IQs like their biological parents rather than adoptive ones
3) Adult IQ is heavily heritable, per the Wilson Effect.
4) Flynn effects are rarely seen in cohorts born around 1970 or 1980.

You "refuted" none of that, just as you have yet to refute criticism of Nisbett.

 

What evidence did you provide of yours? I don't care whether you believe me or not. If Rayznack wants to support his claim with evidence he has the opportunity to do that.

Graves said about 50% which is an estimate. There is no fixed number so you proved nothing wrong.

Here's what a textbook cited by you actually said:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...psychology-9th-edition-by-david-myers.452080/

Source: Psychology 9th Edition by David Myers Chapter 10. Intelligence p. 434

1) The Black-White IQ gap is decreasing
2) Genetic research supports environment as a cause of racial differences in IQ
3) Race is socially constructed
4) The rise and fall of civilizations (one day they're in a golden age the next era they are not) does not support a genetic racial hierarchy in intelligence
5) Asian academic achievement appears to be caused by culture rather than genetics
6) Under the same environmental conditions Black and White test scores are comparable

Every single one of those claims is consistent with research I have posted in this thread which you have not refuted. None of the points you raised are relevant to my argument in this thread.

This is my claim in this thread:

There is no scientific basis to claiming a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and I have defended that statement with multiple sources that none of you racists have refuted.

I only need to defend criticisms of Nisbett that are actually relevant to my claims and my use of him as a source. I have done that.